The Many Faces of Framing in Negotiation



The Many Faces of Framing in Negotiation

Daniel Druckman and James N. Druckman

The purpose of this book is to present a sampling of perspectives on the way that frames are used in research on negotiation and mediation. The authors have accomplished this purpose. We are treated to a rich menu of approaches that emphasize the concept of frames. The menu makes evident that the concept is elastic. It is used in different ways to provide an opening for the development of perspectives that reflect particular epistemological arguments. A number of the authors confront these differences by offering comparisons between their own and other approaches (see, for example, the contrast between cognitive and interactional approaches in the Dewulf et al., chapter). The comparisons illuminate a major contribution made by this book: to enliven the debate about how negotiation is to be construed. This commentary contributes to the debate by capturing the central themes of each chapter, elucidating dimensions that distinguish among the chapters, raising questions about missing links to similar concepts in the literature, and suggesting new directions for research on framing from relevant social science literatures. We begin with a discussion of the chapter themes in terms of framing metaphors.

Metaphors for Frames

Metaphors are a useful way of thinking about negotiation. They capture the way negotiation is depicted and analyzed by scholars from different disciplines (e.g., see D. Druckman, 2007). They also highlight the key idea of a philosophical perspective on the way that negotiation processes unfold. Focusing attention on those ideas, we identify the metaphor in concert with the authors’ central arguments. The chapters are grouped in terms of their prevailing focus on context, interactions, or cognitive/psychological processes.

Focus on context

Context plays a central role in the perspectives put forward in the chapters by Bommel and Aarts, Kaufman and Shmueli, and Aarts et al. For Bommel and Aarts, frames are construed as socially-embedded cognitive products. The cognitive features of frames are understood in terms of social and historical processes that include power/authority relationships, interests defined by political and economic institutions, and culture. The contextual overlay defines conflicts between frames, contributing to ingroup-outgroup stereotypes that further exacerbate the conflict. While difficult to resolve, the contending frames can be integrated through a negotiation process. A challenge, illustrated by their case study, is to deal with both the holistic and dynamic features of the conflict during the negotiation conversations.

For Kaufman and Shmueli, frames are regarded as reflections of organizational cultures. Their macro level treatment promotes the idea of collective representations, which include organizational cognitions and values. A question raised is whether these representations or worldviews are relatively stable or changing. Both features are heralded by the authors’ treatment. The stable feature of frames is found in ideological coherence (similar to Hoffmann’s analysis of argumentation) and profiles of different types of negotiation. The dynamic feature is found in shifting principal-agent relationships and in the re-framing that precipitates turning points that resolve impasses. Moving between stable and dynamic aspects of frames and between negotiating process and context, these authors convey conceptual complexity. A result is that elicitation procedures are also complex, leading them to ask whether it is worth the effort.

The chapter by Aarts et al. construes frames as identities. Their analysis of public spaces moves between micro (neighborhoods) and macro (societal contexts) levels. At the micro level, they inform us about several functions served by public spaces. This discussion is in the traditions of ecological psychology (Barker, 1968) and behavioral architecture (Rapoport, 1982), where space is shown to influence perceptions and behaviors. The focus of this treatment is on the way space influences the development of group attachments among neighborhood youth. It captures much of what we know about group formation, cohesion, and ingroup-outgroup perceptions. But, the discussion goes beyond small group dynamics. The authors also recognize that identities and the attendant conflicts are shaped by societal institutions and other relational contexts that define boundaries of inclusion and exclusion. By highlighting macro-level influences, the authors suggest connections between the levels of analysis. However, the connections are not sufficiently developed to serve as a framework for further analyses. Lacking is a mediating mechanism – such as collective representations -- that ties the levels together.

Focus on interactions

The chapters by Donohue, Dewulf et al., Curseu, and De Carlo consider frames as emerging from interaction processes at the interpersonal or group levels of analysis. A clear statement of this perspective is found in Donohue’s chapter where frames are construed as joint patterns. . He situates group/interpersonal processes between earlier notions of a group mind (Allport, 1969) and the modern-day cognitive social psychologist’s emphasis on individual thinking that is influenced by others with whom he/she interacts. This middle ground can be construed as the products of interactions, including “developing reciprocities among individuals, organizational structures, and group products, like norms “ (Sherif and Sherif, 1956: 342). But, this middle level poses problems for measurement because of uncertainties about how to combine performances of team members: Are they to be combined by using linear or non-linear algorithms? A clue provided by Donohue is to look at sequences of communications, categorizing communicative acts as either substantive or relational. The joint patterns that emerge from such analyses would capture interactions, and these patterns define the middle ground (e.g., see Donohue and Roberto, 1993).

Continuing along these lines, Dewulf et al. regard frames as constructions that coordinate communication. They connect coordination to outcomes, suggesting that similar (dissimilar) frames increase (decrease) the chances for integrative outcomes. This is consistent with recent findings showing that better negotiation outcomes result from more synchronous conversations (Taylor and Thomas, 2008). Their distinction between framing issues and framing identities captures the substantive and relational aspects of negotiation in a manner similar to Donohue’s emphasis. The situation-specific feature of interaction approaches to framing is evident in the importance ascribed to the moment, placing these approaches squarely in the Lewinian tradition of social psychology. Like Lewin, these authors recognize that the moment encapsulates a legacy of past interaction, which they refer to as context. This would suggest that the film metaphor applies: coordination is analyzed one “frame” at a time.

The focus on frames as emergent processes is evident as well in Curseu’s chapter. A difference however is that his perspective highlights groups as distinct entities. Following a social science tradition initiated by Durkheim (1895) and developed further by Campbell (1958), Curseu argues persuasively that groups can be regarded as processing agents. Less clear, however, are what is being processed and how do groups perform the processing. The author’s focus on gains and loss frames suggests that this is the information being processed, and, if so, then research on prospect theory demonstrates relationships between these frames and negotiation decisions. But, there is more to this chapter. The propositions about group composition and emotional valence are interesting. His attempt to unpack the parts of group composition provide insights about which factors lead toward integrative agreements (expertise, experience, beliefs) and those that lead away (power/status disparities). The counter-intuitive proposition that negative moods, when expressed as anger rather than fear, encourage integrative outcomes is valuable and supports recent findings about the use of anger in negotiation (e.g., van Kleef et al., 2008). Taken together, the factors discussed suggest that power disparity, threat or fear, low diversity among group members, and a gains frame militate against attaining integrative agreements. Missing is the key intervening process highlighted by the group perspective: How are these factors processed by the group during negotiation?

Interaction processes are highlighted as well by De Carlo. Drawing on insights from psychoanalytic writing, he construes the researcher as a clinician who plays a central role in constructing frames. In this role, the researcher creates an environment that encourages creative thinking. Placed in the context of negotiation, this role is viewed as opening opportunities for new ideas that can lead to integrative agreements. These opportunities may facilitate the sensitive process of exchanging information about interests and needs, particularly with regard to balancing information that encourages coordination against information that reveals further incompatibilities between the parties. Similar to the mediator who encourages problem solving, De Carlo’s clinician is a synthesizer of competing frames rather than a strategist who promotes one type of frame over another. Although the mechanics of this role are obscure in the chapter, the “framing” of the role is a useful feature of integrative bargaining processes.

Focus on Cognition

The remaining four chapters consider frames from the standpoint of psychological processes, emphasizing in varying degrees the role of cognition. The concept of mindsets, offered by Olekalns and Smith, is perhaps the most explicit treatment of negotiators’ cognitive processes. Regarded as interpretive filters, mindsets function to reduce uncertainty in negotiation. They do this by directing attention to certain features of the other’s negotiating behavior. One feature concerns the other’s concessions, considered to be part of an exchange process leading to deals. Another concerns the balance between negative and positive actions as indicated by language and nonverbal expressions. Both these features contribute to judgments about the other party’s trustworthiness. Increased trustworthiness occurs when concessions are reciprocated. It also increases when the other behaves in a cooperative manner. For these authors, frames are interpretive filters that direct the process toward or away from agreements.

A similar metaphor is suggested by Lewicki and Brinsfield’s chapter. They also regard frames as interpretive filters. For them, however, judgments of trust are the filter: Rather than focusing on the mindsets that lead to trust (as is done by Olekalns and Smith), they examine the consequences of having established a certain level of trust. They construe trust as a heuristic that facilitates decision-making. It does this in four ways. One is as a spillover from one negotiation to another involving the same parties (representative heuristic). Another is as an accumulation of experiences that increase the availability of trusting feelings. A third is as an anchoring effect where initial interactions bias future interpretations of the other’s actions. And, a fourth is as an influence on mood. Trust engenders positive feelings toward the other that are likely to be reciprocated. Each of these heuristics creates a halo around the trusted person. This would no doubt facilitate coordination. We learn less, however, about the conditions that would alter trust judgments. Questions of interest are: What kinds of evidence would lead to departures from any of these heuristics? What events would lead to disappointed expectations?

Hoffmann provides a more complex treatment of frames. He divides frames into several types. The distinction between semiotic and cognitive frames is similar to the difference between encoding (producing signs) and decoding (interpreting signs). Added to this distinction is the idea of frame neutrality: The processes involved in producing and interpreting are biased. Focusing on argumentation, he develops a system, referred to as LAM, for detecting the rules of inference and assumptions underlying political discourses with examples of application. This approach is similar to earlier efforts in international relations to develop cognitive maps of political leaders (e.g., Axelrod, 1977). It also resembles an even earlier body of work that distinguishes between central and peripheral belief structures (Rokeach, 1960). But, unlike many of the cognitive mapping analysts, Hoffmann recognizes that the analysts also have frames that are likely to influence their interpretations, as noted by his concept of frame neutrality. And, unlike the belief theorists of an earlier era, he develops the idea of mutually reinforcing webs of beliefs, values, and attitudes, which makes his approach particularly relevant to problems of intractable conflicts. Less clear, however, is the value of the approach for comparative analysis. Despite the effort to develop common concepts and procedures for analysis, the applications are labor intensive and come across more in an emic (case specific) than an etic (comparative) tradition of research.

Turning to another application of a cognitive approach to framing, Rogan analyzes a well-known case of terrorism. The analysis sheds light on how frames are used to define and justify the self in relation to others, particularly political opponents. Distinguishing between sacred and secular terrorism, Rogan shows how language is used strategically to justify acts of violence. The contrasting frames of good versus evil provide a basis for aggression against the non-believers. It also situates the analysis in a larger literature on ethnocentrism and group attachments (D. Druckman, 2006). That literature has offered a variety of hypothesized explanations for the bias, dealing primarily with motives (self esteem, threat) and cognitive (categorization, uncertainty) mechanisms. Rogan adds the role of language, which covers both motives (self-justification) and cognitions (belief system). He also makes a recommendation: respond to the true believer’s depiction of “us” non-violently rather than reciprocally. This advice is compatible with Felson’s (1978) situational approach to the way a victim should respond to a perpetrator’s violent acts. Noting limitations of his analysis, Rogan recommends extending the study to more cases, documents, and time periods.

Metaphors as Connections

The chapters present many faces on framing. These faces take the form of metaphors that forge connections to related literatures largely ignored by the authors. Key metaphors for the three chapters that emphasize context are socially embedded cognitive products (Bommel and Aarts), organizational cultures (Kaufman and Shmueli), and identities (Aaarts et al.). The dynamic conflict processes depicted by Bommel and Aarts resemble the way conflicts escalate and de-escalate over time in conjunction with values and interests as described in the literature on the sociology of conflict (Aubert 1963; Druckman and Zechmeister, 1973). Their embedded idea resonates with a conception where context and process are inter-dependent as discussed in the social-orders (Strauss, 1978) and simulation literatures (Mahoney and Druckman, 1975). The organizational feature highlighted by Kaufman and Shmueli is akin to the principal-agent relationship referred to as representational role obligations in the experimental literature (D. Druckman, 1994) and the two-level game in international relations (Putnam, 1988). As we noted above, the Aaarts et al. emphasis on space connects to earlier writing on ecological psychology. These authors add the idea that space influences the way ingroup-outgroup identities are formed and change.

Metaphors for the four chapters that emphasize interactions include joint patterns (Donohue), communication coordination (Dewulf et al.), emergent processes (Curseu), and the role of clinician (De Carlo). Donohue’s joint patterns are products of interaction. This connects to earlier discussions of emergent processes as an appropriate level of analysis for social psychology. His idea of measuring communication acts may capture this level Continuing in this tradition, Dewulf and colleagues connect historically to Lewinian social psychology and contemporaneously to research on synchrony. For them, frames are captured in the moment with an implication that frame-by-frame micro analysis would reveal patterns over time that leads toward or away from integrative agreements. Emergent processes are evident as well in Curseu’s chapter. He draws connections with several streams of related research and offers intriguing propositions. An important contribution is the idea of group processing. But, as we note above, this mediating variable is not linked clearly to the factors – group diversity, gains frames, or moods -- emphasized in the related research. De Carlo’s clinician metaphor connects to the long tradition of interactive conflict resolution with its emphasis on empathy. But, the metaphor also connects to the process of exchanging information. Both increase the chances for attaining integrative agreements. The chapter overlooks these important connections.

Metaphors for the four chapters that focus on cognition include frames as mindsets or interpretive filters (Olekalns and Smith), as heuristics (Lewicki and Brinsfield), as encoded and decoded arguments (Hoffmann), and as self-justification (Rogan). For Olekalns and Smith, a function of mindsets is to reduce uncertainty in negotiation. This idea connects with the work of Hogg and Mullin (1999) on group attachments. These researchers argue that a primary function of groups is to reduce uncertainty. Extending the Olekalns and Smith analysis to negotiating representatives would provide additional insights into the way mindsets work. Lewicki and Brinsfield connect to the well-known literature on social judgment (Nisbett and Ross, 1980). By placing trust in this framework, these authors make an original contribution. Research questions are suggested but are yet to be evaluated. Hoffmann’s complex analysis of argumentation connects with several earlier streams of research, in communication, international relations, and social psychology. A contribution of this chapter is the recognition that researchers also have frames, and these frames influence their analysis. However, the question of just how this happens remains unanswered. Rogan’s analysis also connects to several other bodies of research. The self-justification metaphor is a central theme in experimentation on ingroup bias. But Rogan goes beyond seeking motivational and cognitive explanations for the bias: He shows that good vs. evil frames can justify acts of aggression, particularly by true believers.

The chapters in this book present an array of ways of thinking about frames. This smorgasbord approach provides something for any reader. However, it may also create uncertainly about which (or how many) pieces to choose. We take away a somewhat unsettling feeling that frames cover vast territory across the disciplines of social science. That feeling has motivated us to reduce uncertainty by offering a more precise definition of the concept that may apply to many of the authors’ approaches. We now turn to a discussion of our approach.

What is a Frame?

A lack of definitional consistency is evident in these chapters. It also plagues the more general literature on framing. McCombs (2004: 89) explains, “A longstanding difficulty in discussions of framing is the plethora of widely disparate, sometimes contradictory, definitions of the concept.” To address this, we offer a more precise way of thinking about frames. We begin with the variable of ultimate interest: the possible outcomes of a negotiation or interaction. For example, a developer and a city official may be bargaining over the size of a new development, with one proposed solution being that the development will occupy four city blocks. Each of the negotiating parties evaluates this and other outcomes; in other words, they develop attitudes towards possible outcomes. These attitudes generate a preference ranking that, in turn, determines the negotiation’s content and eventual outcome.

A common portrayal of an attitude is the expectancy value model (e.g., Ajzen and Fishbein 1980, Nelson, Oxley, and Clawson 1997) where an attitude toward an object (e.g., possible outcome) consists of the weighted sum of a series of evaluative beliefs about that object. Specifically, Attitude = ∑vi*wi, where vi is the evaluation of the object on attribute i and wi is the salience weight (∑wi = 1) associated with that attribute. For example, the developer’s and city official’s overall attitudes toward the proposed new housing development might consist of a combination of negative and positive evaluations, vi, of the project on different dimensions i. The city official may believe that a four block solution will favor the economy (i=1) but harm the environment (i=2). Assuming the official places a positive value on both the economy and the environment, then v1 is positive and v2 is negative, and his attitude toward the four block solution will depend on the relative magnitudes of v1 and v2 discounted by the relative weights (w1 and w2) assigned respectively to each attribute (Nelson and Oxley 1999).

The assumption that an individual can place different emphases on various considerations about a subject serves as a useful abstraction for discussing framing. This conceptualization applies to any object of evaluation (and, thus, any set of objects over which individuals have preferences). For instance, a citizens’ attitude toward a group of immigrant youths – with regards to whether they are responsible for disrupting a neighborhood – might depend on whether the citizen puts greater weight on the adjustment challenges faced by the youth or on the violent events which they have been perpetrated (see the Aarts chapter). Another example is the extent to which an individual views a declaration of war as being justified. Justification may depend on evaluations of the combatant’s historical oppression (dimension 1), divine rights (dimension 2), or predilection for violence (dimension 3) (see the Rogan chapter). Similarly, one’s tolerance for a hate group rally may hinge on the perceived collective consequences of the rally for free speech and/or public safety (attentional mindsets) or perceived racial motivations of the group (confirmatory mindset) (see the Olekalns and Smith chapter). For these examples, if only one dimension matters, the individual places all of the weight (wi = 1) on that dimension, making him/her less flexible.

The dimension or dimensions—the “i’s”—that affect an evaluation constitute an individual’s frame in thought. For example, if an individual believes that historical oppression trumps all other concerns, he/she would be in an “oppression” frame of mind. Or, if divine rights dominate all other considerations in assessing a declaration of war, the individual’s frame would be divine rights. However, if he/she gave consideration to oppression, divine rights, and violence, then his/her frame of mind would consist of this mix of considerations. The varying weights placed on the evaluative dimensions often play a decisive role in determining overall attitudes (e.g., more weight to violence leads to greater opposition for the war declaration).[1]

The more attractive one views an outcome (higher evaluation), the more likely, he or she will be to capitulate. Moreover, when various parties interact or negotiate, shared frames facilitate coordination in reaching an outcome (see the chapters by Dewulf et al, Donahue); for example, if developers and the city both place priority on economic rather than environmental implications, they will be more likely to find a mutually agreeable solution. Additionally, frames can be referenced to justify an action (see the chapters by Aarts, Rogan); or, a party who employs the opposition’s frame is likely to gain credibility or legitimacy (see the chapters by van Brommel, Lewicki and Brinsfield).

It may, however, also be the case that negotiators can trade on different frames. This is more likely to occur when they differ on the priority ranking of the dimensions or issues. For example, one party emphasizes costs, the other stresses the importance of environmental protection. This difference allows one party to give more on costs in return for comparable concessions on the environment. Referred to as log-rolling, this strategy has been shown to increase the chances of getting a mutually-desirable agreement (Pruitt and Lewis, 1977). When several issues are at stake, multi-attribute decision analysis has been found to provide useful metrics (Raiffa, 1982).

Much of what negotiations are about concern determining how best to frame alternative stakes and outcomes (see the chapter by Olekalns and Smith, Kaufman and Shmueli). This leads to the critical questions of: from where do frames emerge and what makes a frame compelling or strong? Several of the chapters (e.g., the ones focusing on context) make clear that social and historical processes help define the frames that parties bring to the negotiating table. Frames can be deeply embedded due to cultural norms, identities, or ideologies, resulting in significant difficulties in finding common ground and reaching agreement. For example, it may be that in the aforementioned housing development negotiation, city officials represent constituents with a deep-seated devotion to environmentalism and, thus, the environmental frame carries substantial weight for them. At an even more fundamental level, when devout Catholics enter debates about how to think about abortion policy, they likely will cling to the right to life rather than right to privacy frame.

Importantly, however, frames are not always so embedded. Indeed, other chapters -- particularly those focusing on interactions -- show that frames can emerge from competitive communicative processes that occur over the course of a negotiation (i.e., frames in communication; see J. Druckman forthcoming). Negotiators try to persuade one another to adopt different frames. But why a particular frame embedded in rhetoric is effective in leading a negotiator to adopt that frame is less clear.[2] The existing work on this topic suggests that frame strength has little to do with factors we may find normatively desirable. For example, frames tend to gain strength when they highlight averting losses or out-group threats (Arceneaux 2009), evoke particular emotions (Aarøe 2008; Petersen 2007), include multiple arguments (Baumgartner, De Boef, and Boydstun 2008), and/or have been used in the past and are thus available (Edy 2006). Moreover, Druckman and Bolsen (2009) found that adding factual content to frames does not enhance strength. These types of features echo those in the Aarts chapter, showing how individuals attempt to legitimize frames by deploying personal experiences, stereotypes, and so on. When both parties use these strategies, little progress is likely to be made. But, even when one party uses simplifying images, the other is likely to follow suit by defending his/her own frames in a similar manner. More work along these lines is needed.

Going further, it would be useful to link framing processes to structural or situational variables that define the negotiating environment. The situational levers that impact negotiations are documented (D.Druckman 1993) and include such factors as public attention, time pressure, the intervention of a mediator, as well as the location of the talks. We suspect that frames are elicited by the presence or absence of these features. Unpacking how frames mediate the impact of these situational levers will contribute to a more precise understanding of how and when particular factors matter. Continuing with our housing development example, it may be that negotiations open to public viewing reduce the flexibility of city officials, discouraging them from moving away from an environmental frame: Public attention strengthens the impact of the environmental frame. But, if the negotiations moved to a private venue, officials may exhibit greater movement by considering the economic benefits of the development. Thus, public attention may be a situational lever that particularly matters when negotiators serve constituents with strongly held perspectives on the issue at hand. Increased time pressure would have similar effects on adhering to the environmental frame while mediation may contribute to frame change.

Conclusion

The chapters in this volume illuminate the various ways that the concept of framing is used in negotiation and related processes. We used the idea of metaphors to capture this variety. The metaphors are organized into categories that depict the primary emphasis of each chapter: a focus on context, interactions, or cognitive/psychological processes. The wide-ranging feature of the framing concept reveals both its power and limitations. The power is that the concept is elastic in the sense that it is a referent for many aspects of negotiation or mediation. This elasticity can facilitate analysis and comparison: for example -- How do frames change when the process moves from the decision to negotiate to the construction of an agenda to the way arguments are developed at the table? A key limitation is that, by covering so much, the concept loses analytical specificity. To remedy this limitation, we offer a more precise definition that may capture the interplay among context, interactions, and cognition. This definition suggests that frames as attitudes may mediate the relationship between negotiating structures or situations and outcomes. This would be an interesting next step in research on framing.

References

Aarøe, L. (2008) Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames. Unpublished paper, Aarhus University.

Ajzen, I. and M. Fishbein. (1980). Understanding Attitudes and Predicting Social Behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Allport, G.W. (1969). The historical background of modern social psychology. In G. Lindzay and E. Aronson (eds.) The Handbook of Social Psychology, 2nd Edition. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Arceneaux, K. (2009). Cognitive biases and the strength of political arguments. Unpublished paper, Temple University.

Aubert, V. (1963). Competition and dissensus: Two types of conflict and of conflict resolution. Journal of Conflict Resolution 7: 26-42.

Axelrod, R. (1977). Argumentation in foreign policy settings: Britain in 1918, Munich in 1938, and Japan in 1970. Journal of Conflict Resolution 21: 727-744.

Barker, R.G. (1968). Ecological Psychology. Stanford CA: Stanford University Press.

Baumgartner, F. R., S. L. De Boef, and A. E. Boydstun. 2008. The Decline of the Death Penalty and the Discovery of Innocence. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Campbell, D.T. (1958). Common fate, similarity, and othewr indices of the status of aggregates of persons as social entities. Behavioral Science 3: 14-25.

Donohue, W.A. and A.J. Roberto (1993). Relational development as negotiated order in hostage negotiations. Human Communication Research 20: 175-198.

Druckman, D. (1993). The situational levers of negotiating flexibility. Journal of Conflict Resolution 37: 236-276.

Druckman, D. 1994. “Determinants of Compromising Behavior in Negotiation: A Meta-Analysis.” Journal of Conflict Resolution 38: 507-556.

Druckman, D. (2006). Group attachments in negotiation and collective action. International Negotiation 11: 229-252.

Druckman, D. (2007). Negotiating in the international context. In I.W. Zartman (ed.) Peacemaking in International Conflict: Methods & Techniques. Washington DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.

Druckman, D. and K. Zechmeister (1973). Conflict of interest and value dissensus: Propositions in the sociology of conflict. Human Relations 26: 449-466.

Druckman, J. N. (forthcoming) What’s it all about?:  Framing in political science. In

Gideon Keren (ed.) Perspectives on Framing. New York:  Psychology Press/

Taylor & Francis.

Druckman, J. N., and T. Bolsen. 2009. Framing, motivated reasoning, and opinions

about emergent technologies. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Toronto, September 3-6.

Durkheim, E. (1895). Les Regles de la Methode Sociologique. Paris: F. Alcan.

Edy, J. A. (2006). Troubled Pasts: News and The Collective Memory of Social Unrest. Philadelphia: Temple University Press.

Felson, R.B. (1978). Aggression as impression management. Social Psychology 41: 205-213.

Hogg, M.A. and B.A. Mullin (1999). Joining groups to reduce uncertainty: Subjective uncertainty reduction and group identification. In D. Abrams and M.A. Hogg (eds.) Social Identity and Social Cognition. Oxford, GB: Blackwell.

Levin, I. P., S. L. Schneider, and G. J. Gaeth. 1998. All frames are not created equal.

Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 76: 149-188.

Mahoney R. and D. Druckman (1975). Simulation, experimentation, and context: Dimensions of design and inference. Simulation & Games 6: 235-270.

McCombs, M.. 2004. Setting the Agenda: The Mass Media and Public Opinion. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Nelson, T. E., Z. M. Oxley, and R. A. Clawson. 1997. Toward a psychology of framing effects.” Political Behavior 19: 221-246.

Nisbett,R. and L. Ross (1980). Human Inference: Strategies and Shortcomings of Social Judgment. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice Hall.

O’Keefe, D. J. (2002). Persuasion. 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

Petersen, M. B. (2007). Causes of political affect: Investigating the interaction between political cognitions and evolved emotions. Unpublished paper, Aarhus University.

Pruitt, D.G. and S.A. Lewis (1977). The psychology of integrative bargaining. In D. Druckman (ed.) Negotiations: Social-Psychological Perspectives. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

Putnam, R.D. (1988). Diplomacy and domestic politics: The logic of two-level games. International Organization 43: 427-460.

Raiffa. H. (1982). The Art and Science of Negotiation. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Rapoport, A. (1982). The Meaning of the Built Environment: A Nonverbal Communication Approach. Beverly Hills CA: Sage.

Rokeach, M. (1960). The Open and Closed Mind. New York: Basic Books.

Sherif, M. and C. W. Sherif (1956). An Outline of Social Psychology. New York: Harper and Row.

Strauss, A. (1978). Negotiations: Varieties, Contexts, Processes, and Social Order. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Taylor P.J. and S. Thomas (2008). Linguistic style matching and negotiation outcome. Negotiation and Conflict Management Research 1: 263-281.

Van Kleef, G.A., E. van Dijk, W. Steinel, F. Harink, and I. Van Beest (2008). Anger in social conflict: Cross-situational comparisons and suggestions for the future. Group Decision and Negotiation 17: 13-30.

-----------------------

[1] In each of our examples, the various dimensions of evaluation are substantively distinct – that is, one could reasonably give some weight to each consideration such as free speech, public safety, or racism. The dimensions also could be objectively identical such as when the same information is presented in either a positive or negative light (e.g., an economic program can be framed as leading to 95% employment or 5% unemployment) (see Levin, Schneider, and Gaeth 1998; J. Druckman forthcoming; also see the chapter by Curseu).

[2] Even the large persuasion literature offers scant insight; O’Keefe (2002: 147, 156) explains, “Unhappily, this research evidence is not as illuminating as one might suppose… It is not yet known what it is about the ‘strong arguments’… that makes them persuasive.”

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download